Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How those other countries are able to do that might surprise you. They tax regressively (low and middle income earners bear the greatest tax burden and as recompense, also reap the greatest benefits) instead of progressively as here in the US. We can't have generous social programs because US low and middle income earners simply refuse to pay their share of taxes.
Includes links to the source and research (which includes many more research citations).
I'm all for each man and women carrying the loads as they are able to and to contributing towards the greater good. Many hands make light work. I do not think that any income class should skirt out on this responsibility (from the wealthiest down to the person making the lowest wage). I am not for policies that skirt out any income earner from carrying this load, nor am I for reducing the "load" (funding) when the load is a beneficial program that benefits Billions. Any measures, means and policies that go towards providing for the greater good / majority / society as a whole (not a select few) is a good thing. If something can be done better, then I am all ears, and so should our leadership regardless of political affiliation.
In fact, it has been Republican policy long before the advent of Trump. Medicare (part A, the basic benefit) is funded through Social Security. An attack upon the viability of Social Security is an attack on Medicare as well.
Now IF as Trump has claimed, the contributions are deferred, then the working people will have to make up their contributions later, effectively doubling their contributions at some later date. That is NOT going to be popular.
So Trump has thrown hints that he might make the deferment permanent at a later date. That would actually unfund Social Security.
Of course, this Trump stuff is all nonsense. The man is crazy as a loon ... or maybe not.
Trump knows that he will be dead within probably 10 to 15 years if he follows the national average. He won't be around when millions of retirees are thrown into poverty and cursing his eternal soul, and he won't be around when some future president and congress will have to sort out the mess he made and try to fix it.
The effective tax rates often decline in most systems when you look at everything. In much of Europe, the wealthy can move their money offshore to avoid the high tax rates. Corporations do that in the United States and other countries by setting up foreign domiciles.
The debt is being run up in the general revenues because the US has appropriated funds for war, military procurement, and corporate income tax relief without raising funds elsewhere. Outside of the trust fund accounts, mainly SS and Medicare/Medicaid, about 50 percent of the budget has been historically funded by raising debt. Blaming SS and Medicare/Medicaid is a red herring.
No no no... it seems nobody on this thread understands what Trump wants to do, probably because you never owned a business. This is not about payroll taxes being deducted from employees - this is about 1/2 payroll taxes paid by the employer. As an employee, you never see these taxes - they are paid by your employer, in the equal amount as what you see deducted from your paycheck as an employee. The government collects twice what was deducted from your paycheck, and your employee pays the other half of it. And if you are self-employed, you pay both halves. Trump wants the employer half of the taxes deferred, and eventually abolished.
they don't understand - for sure! - but on this point you've got it wrong...
Quote:
A big fan of payroll tax cuts, Trump signed an executive action Saturday deferring the employee portion of payroll taxes -- 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare -- for workers making less than $100,000 a year through the rest of 2020.
we have had employer relief since CARES was passed:
Quote:
the CARES Act permits employers to defer payment of their remaining 2020 Social Security payroll tax liabilities into 2021 and 2022. All this assistance is delivered through the existing system used by employers to deposit federal payroll taxes.
So we're talking ANOTHER 6 month period (don't forget Obama's 2% [33%] payroll tax cut for 2011 and 2012) of 7.6% given directly to consumers.
So, if you did work for 40 years, your benefit would be cut by .5/40 = 1/80th. Yes or no?
No- the root of my disdain lies in the bursting federal debt. We should not be a debt driven nation. I also don't believe our societies 'government' is capable of managing programs as huge as these. Look at it now- it's running head first into insolvency as it is.
And fraud is more than 2%- trust me.
You do realize that there is a minimum amount of social services and social programs there can be for a safe, secure, educated and taken care of society and cuts to below these minimum required levels would be a detriment to a society right? Think firefighters, police, social security, water inspection, food inspection, federal airways, utilities etc.
You do realize these things cost money right?
You do realize that cutting funding sources (like taxes) from these essential things increases local and our national debt right? So if one is for elimination, decreasing (or at least not increasing of debt) one would not be for reducing and / or eliminating the funding sources of these essential social services. Someone has to pay the piper.
You personally may have experienced more then 2% in your mind but the statistics and facts show that not only is it not more then 2% (or even 2%), its less then that.
I told a friend a few days ago that if Trump did this and Dems had a lick of political canny, they would make hay over this.... bye bye Florida... bye bye second Trump term.
interestingly, if you're already retired, your check is completely secure. No matter what lies the Dem politicians tell you.
...
Term limits and balanced budgets are our only hope.
I'd be ok with term limits on Senators if we repealed the direct election provisions of the 17th Amendment.
I'm not ok with term limits on the house.
I used to be for term limits, and there are very valid arguments for them. Then I was presented with an argument against them that gave me a fresh perspective.
Our elected representatives are precisely that - the people that We the People have chosen to represent us in government.
If I think that Louie Gohmert has been doing a good job for TX-1, and I want him to be able to continue representing me, why should he be excluded from that opportunity simply because he's done it before? That's not hurting Gohmert; that's hurting me, the person who believes he's the best choice to represent me in government.
Term limits disenfranchise the voters, not the politicians. Corruption is a big problem, but we're going to have to tackle it in other ways.
You make a good argument about term limits in the House. Since they are two year terms I may have to think about this a little bit. The longer our representatives serve the more stability we have in government and when people earn the trust of their representatives, perhaps there ought to be a reward for that.
I think three terms in the senate is plenty. That's 18 years, which to me is a long time in office.
If we made the House a maximum of 9 terms that would also be 18 years. Maybe ten terms would be a good limit, or maybe we don't need limits in the House.
I think campaign finance reform is more important than term limits. For instance, a Representative candidate should only be able to raise money from registered voters within their own district. Senator candidates should be able to raise donations only from registered voters within their own states. We need to get that 'out of state' influence completely out of our politics, and make the Representatives and Senators answerable to the actual voters once again, not the special interests of commercial giants and rich families far away.
Here's the thing; Trump's proposal--for the moment, that is --is to eliminate the tax for those making $100K or lower. But the ceiling is $134,000 or thereabout. Above that nobody pays a cent toward SS/M. So how many people make between $100K and $134,000? Not enough to fund SS/M that's for sure. But remove the ceiling or at least raise it substantially maybe to $500K and put it on a sliding scale and we would have enough money to fund SS/M for the next 100 years. But that's too commonsense an approach so naturally it won't go anywhere.
The Federal government has a quarter quadrillion dollars in assets. They could pay off the debt tomorrow if they wanted but for various reasons it wouldn't be a sound move. Just know that when push comes to shove the Fed has a way to bail everyone out, which is why the nation will likely never declare bankruptcy.
you could take the time to get your facts and figures correct. for example, your bolded...
Quote:
There is no income cap (or wage base limit) for the Medicare portion of the tax, meaning you continue to owe your half of the 2.9% tax on all wages earned for the year, regardless of the amount of money you make.
You do realize that there is a minimum amount of social services and social programs there can be for a safe, secure, educated and taken care of society and cuts to below these minimum required levels would be a detriment to a society right? Think firefighters, police, social security, water inspection, food inspection, federal airways, utilities etc.
You do realize these things cost money right?
You do realize that cutting funding sources (like taxes) from these essential things increases local and our national debt right? So if one is for elimination, decreasing (or at least not increasing of debt) one would not be for reducing and / or eliminating the funding sources of these essential social services. Someone has to pay the piper.
You personally may have experienced more then 2% in your mind but the statistics and facts show that not only is it not more then 2% (or even 2%), its less then that.
Quote:
According to the most recent statistics available, between 2004 and 2017, the Social Security Administration (SSA) admits to improper payments totaling $1.3 trillion. Retirement, survivors, disability insurance, and Supplemental Security Income were all involved. The use of fake or stolen Social Security numbers to obtain fraudulent tax refunds from the IRS also costs taxpayers billions each year, the IRS reports.
That's not including other incidences of fraud, such as VA benefit fraud. And I'm not sure if that encompasses medicaid/medicare fraud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
--is to eliminate the tax for those making $100K or lower. But the ceiling is $134,000 or thereabout. Above that nobody pays a cent toward SS/M. So how many people make between $100K and $134,000? Not enough to fund SS/M that's for sure. But remove the ceiling or at least raise it substantially maybe to $500K and put it on a sliding scale and we would have enough money to fund SS/M for the next 100 years. But that's too commonsense an approach so naturally it won't go anywhere. 
